Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 279

Thread: Ron Paul calls binLaden raid "unnecessary"

  1. #1
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812

    Ron Paul calls binLaden raid "unnecessary"

    Just saw this on fox.com:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...in-laden-raid/

    And it kind of irked me. Especially this quote:

    The Texas congressman questioned whether Obama could have gotten away with the operation if Usama bin Laden had been in a country other than Pakistan.


    If he'd been in a country other than Pakistan, with a government that's like compromised, such a raid wouldn't have been needed in the first place. Then it goes on to mention Rep Paul's continued opposition to our presence in Afghanistan, and that's what made me feel like ranting.

    Over the last couple of years since I've started carrying, and really understanding my rights for the first time, my political ideals have changed a lot. Shifted even further to the right. Now I have tremendous respect for mr Paul (at least his opposition isn''t based on the peacnik "war is baaaaad" mantra), and at this point I could *almost* call myself a libertarian, but what keeps making me is their stubborn adherence to isolationist foreign policy ideals that just don't work. Wasn't the first half of the 20th century enough proof that minding our own business is NO guarantee that others won't set out to do us harm, and the dire consequences of allowing such evil to propagate unchecked?

    There now... That should either generate some interesting banter or the ire of the moderators
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  2. #2
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Never drawn to him, he would have never got my vote even with-out the statement.

  3. #3
    Regular Member KYKevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Owensboro, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by jbone View Post
    Never drawn to him, he would have never got my vote even with-out the statement.
    I am with J on this. I know very little about the man other than he is pro 2a. While that is a good thing it will take alot more than that to get me interested in him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Ron Paul from what I understand would be considered a pretty strict Constitutionalist type voter.

    Which explains why he votes NO, against most every bill he gets a vote on. If it doesn't follow the Bill of Rights and Constitution, he'll vote against it. I carry quite a bit of respect for him because of this.

  5. #5
    Regular Member CharleyCherokee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    WesternKy
    Posts
    294
    If you don't know much about Ron Paul you should take an hour to research into him a bit. If everyone took at least an hour to research a canindate before committing a vote to them then perhaps canindates would feel more inclined to have principle and integrity.
    However, it is sadly the norm that people take far too much heart to what they hear from the T.V. box thingy. My personal belief is that something as important as voting to give someone the power to govern you is worth a little bit of your time to make sure you know WHO you're voting for. Unfortunately, voters are a minority... educated voters greatly more so.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765
    Quote Originally Posted by KYKevin View Post
    I am with J on this. I know very little about the man other than he is pro 2a. While that is a good thing it will take alot more than that to get me interested in him.
    I'm the third.

  7. #7
    Regular Member KYKevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Owensboro, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by CharleyCherokee View Post
    If you don't know much about Ron Paul you should take an hour to research into him a bit. If everyone took at least an hour to research a canindate before committing a vote to them then perhaps canindates would feel more inclined to have principle and integrity.
    However, it is sadly the norm that people take far too much heart to what they hear from the T.V. box thingy. My personal belief is that something as important as voting to give someone the power to govern you is worth a little bit of your time to make sure you know WHO you're voting for. Unfortunately, voters are a minority... educated voters greatly more so.
    I do research them. I am just not ready to yet. Too many people like trump making a dog and pony show out of things right now. I'll wait til it quiets down a bit. See who is serious and then research. I am just not sure if any of em will have what it takes to knock obama out right now. Running mates are gonna make a big difference too. Who do you think Ron will go with as a running mate?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by VW_Factor View Post
    Ron Paul from what I understand would be considered a pretty strict Constitutionalist type voter.

    Which explains why he votes NO, against most every bill he gets a vote on. If it doesn't follow the Bill of Rights and Constitution, he'll vote against it. I carry quite a bit of respect for him because of this.
    Thats the reason I voted for him in 08 and its the reason why I will vote for him in 12. He is the only person in congress I know of that actually looks through the constitution on each bill to find out if the constitution gives him and congress the power to pass that bill, if it does not then he votes against it. The rest of them up there just vote on a bill based on who gives them the most money.

    As far as his comment regarding binladen, he said we should have worked with pakistan, he said we should have consulted them and worked with them instead of going in without their permission(which is essentially an invasion). What if the Mexican government(though very unlikely to happen) decided to go after one of the drug lords that was hiding in Arizona on a raid just like we did to Osama? Would you be supporting Mexico for invading our country to nab a drug lord without our permission or would you be screaming for something to be done to Mexico for invading our country without permission?

    Besides, the whole raid was just one big staged publicity stunt. Its only purpose was the give Obama a jump in points and to keep us distracted for whatever they are doing behind the scenes, and by the I am talking about the global elite.

  9. #9
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by jag06 View Post
    Thats the reason I voted for him in 08 and its the reason why I will vote for him in 12. He is the only person in congress I know of that actually looks through the constitution on each bill to find out if the constitution gives him and congress the power to pass that bill, if it does not then he votes against it. The rest of them up there just vote on a bill based on who gives them the most money.
    Even if he doesn't end up officially running, I'll vote for him again as well.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by VW_Factor View Post
    Ron Paul from what I understand would be considered a pretty strict Constitutionalist type voter.

    Which explains why he votes NO, against most every bill he gets a vote on. If it doesn't follow the Bill of Rights and Constitution, he'll vote against it. I carry quite a bit of respect for him because of this.
    This is where I respect him too, and wish there were generally more like him. But where he totally looses me is on foreign policy issues that ( usually) have nothing to do with the constitution and are completely at the discretion of the congress & president!

    Now someone called the mission an invasion. Not right. Invasion implies sticking around to occupy territory, which we did not. This was an incursion, and one that I find justifiable due to the fact that the pakistani govt is not just possibly but LIKELY compromised by operatives friendly to bin laden. If we had notified them, the possibility that obl could have slipped away again would be too great. Hence the incursion. That's what diplomats are for.

    What I find infuriating are obamas attempts to take credit with "I did this" and "I did that" when this entire thing was made possible ONLY by interrogation and detainment policies put in place by the Bush administration, and that Obama swore up & down he would end!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    It may not change much as far as encouraging terrorists to not join some group to commit a terrorist act against Americans.

    But...

    It is sure nice to hear that Bin Laden is no longer alive because a SEAL shot a bullet in Bin Laden's head. Well, and that Bin Laden is fish-food - likely at this point fish feces.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  12. #12
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    What I find infuriating are obamas attempts to take credit with "I did this" and "I did that" when this entire thing was made possible ONLY by interrogation and detainment policies put in place by the Bush administration, and that Obama swore up & down he would end!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Kind of like this video where he is taking all the credit:

    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  13. #13
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    MetalHead,

    Perhaps Mr. Paul thinks we need to get out of Afghanistan because he knows that our main reason to be there is to use our military and independent contractors to secure the opium trade for the big international banks--NOT to fight against imaginary men in funny hats living in imaginary caves...

    And when you add on to that the fact that the Mujahideen were actually CREATED by the CIA to fight the Russians, and only got cranky with the US when we stopped sending them "welfare checks" once the Soviets backed out, there really is no legitimate reason for us to be there.

    We're spending billions of dollars for a "war" JUST so the international banks can profit from the drug money being created by the increase in opium traffic from Afghanistan.

    Meanwhile, we put people in jail in the US for smoking a doobie.

    The "war on terror" is really a "war OF terror", and the REAL terrorists are not men in funny hats living in caves--they are Ivy-league Brooks-Brothers suit-wearing sociopaths living in multi-million-dollar mansions.

    This isn't a "left/right" issue. It's a TRUTH and LIBERTY issue.

    I like Ron Paul on almost EVERY issue (with the exception of his stance on women's reproductive health issues). He is a life-long, steadfast Constitutionalist. That is why I vote for him--he's not part of the false left-right paradigm, and he's not in the pockets of the big international banks like Goldman Sachs, JPMC, and the Federal Reserve.

    He is the lesser of all available evils, so he gets my vote.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by jag06 View Post
    Thats the reason I voted for him in 08 and its the reason why I will vote for him in 12. He is the only person in congress I know of that actually looks through the constitution on each bill to find out if the constitution gives him and congress the power to pass that bill, if it does not then he votes against it. The rest of them up there just vote on a bill based on who gives them the most money.

    As far as his comment regarding binladen, he said we should have worked with pakistan, he said we should have consulted them and worked with them instead of going in without their permission(which is essentially an invasion). What if the Mexican government(though very unlikely to happen) decided to go after one of the drug lords that was hiding in Arizona on a raid just like we did to Osama? Would you be supporting Mexico for invading our country to nab a drug lord without our permission or would you be screaming for something to be done to Mexico for invading our country without permission?

    Besides, the whole raid was just one big staged publicity stunt. Its only purpose was the give Obama a jump in points and to keep us distracted for whatever they are doing behind the scenes, and by the I am talking about the global elite.
    If Mexico did what you say then it would depend on the particulars. For example if they tried to work with the U.S. but got stonewalled and the U.S. refused to act on any intel then I would be furious with our own government for not acting to remove the drug lord. Additionally I would be furious that our own government was so inept as to be unable to detect a heavily armed group of people moving across the border like this and would make me seriously question the safety of the country (not that I don't question it already).

    If Mexico acted w/o informing the government then I would still need to know why. If the reason was because our government is so corrupt that they would have tipped off the drug lord, then I would again be furious with our own government for being so corrupt.

    In the end it all comes down to the particular reasons the attack was made w/o our government's knowledge. And chances are I wouldn't be mad at those who had the balls to take action, I would be mad at those who are either too corrupt and simply refuse to take action.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    MetalHead,

    Perhaps Mr. Paul thinks we need to get out of Afghanistan because he knows that our main reason to be there is to use our military and independent contractors to secure the opium trade for the big international banks--NOT to fight against imaginary men in funny hats living in imaginary caves...

    And when you add on to that the fact that the Mujahideen were actually CREATED by the CIA to fight the Russians, and only got cranky with the US when we stopped sending them "welfare checks" once the Soviets backed out, there really is no legitimate reason for us to be there.

    We're spending billions of dollars for a "war" JUST so the international banks can profit from the drug money being created by the increase in opium traffic from Afghanistan.

    Meanwhile, we put people in jail in the US for smoking a doobie.

    The "war on terror" is really a "war OF terror", and the REAL terrorists are not men in funny hats living in caves--they are Ivy-league Brooks-Brothers suit-wearing sociopaths living in multi-million-dollar mansions.

    This isn't a "left/right" issue. It's a TRUTH and LIBERTY issue.

    I like Ron Paul on almost EVERY issue (with the exception of his stance on women's reproductive health issues). He is a life-long, steadfast Constitutionalist. That is why I vote for him--he's not part of the false left-right paradigm, and he's not in the pockets of the big international banks like Goldman Sachs, JPMC, and the Federal Reserve.

    He is the lesser of all available evils, so he gets my vote.
    Ahh leave it to Dreamer to come up with a crazy conspiracy theory on why we're in Afghanistan. I was beginning to wonder where these posts had gone!


    As for the Ron Paul quote. I agree that it wasn't "necessary" but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have done it. I don't think we should be over there, but as we are there I don't see any reason to not take out people such as Osama. I just wish the U.S. could quit playing the role of "world police."

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    So, let me get this straight. We read a news source that does not give us the full, entire, complete quote so we can see the entire context, and we decide to get bent out of shape?

    A news source that starts out attributing to the man a controversial position in the very first paragraph without actually quoting him in that paragraph. And, then doesn't really give any hints of his rationale until the sixth paragraph.

    Just days before he is set to announce his presidential candidacy?

    This is the American lamestream media we're talking about here.

    You don't suppose that news source has a candidate they prefer?

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    what keeps making me is their stubborn adherence to isolationist foreign policy ideals that just don't work.
    I have no information that Dr. Paul is isolationist. As far as I know he is very supportive of being on good terms with the rest of the world through trade.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    SNIP Perhaps Mr. Paul thinks we need to get out of Afghanistan because he knows that our main reason to be there is to use our military and independent contractors to secure the opium trade for the big international banks--NOT to fight against imaginary men in funny hats living in imaginary caves...
    I don't know if Dr. Paul thinks that exactly. But, I'll bet he understands the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about. Certainly Dr. Paul understands the banking system.

    PS: I used to think the so-called military-industrial complex was just so much liberal nonsense. Til I found out Eisenhower was the one who warned about it. (In his farewell speech. Its on youtube.) When you have a former military man--the former Supreme Allied Commander--warning you about the relationship between the military and its suppliers, you want to pay attention.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-12-2011 at 10:36 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by VW_Factor View Post
    Even if he doesn't end up officially running, I'll vote for him again as well.
    Same
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg9ko...eature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzaLP...eature=related
    Last edited by zack991; 05-12-2011 at 11:07 PM.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  19. #19
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    Ahh leave it to Dreamer to come up with a crazy conspiracy theory on why we're in Afghanistan. I was beginning to wonder where these posts had gone!

    Yeah, a crazy conspiracy like the fact that when the Taliban was "in control" of Afghanistan (as if ANYONE has ever been in control of Afghanistan...) the Opium exports from Afghanistan were at an all-time historic low.

    And since we have occupied that nation, the opium production has increased exponentially, and street prices, especially in the US, have dropped dramatically:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6239734.stm

    http://www.nps.edu/Academics/centers...ylorJun05.html

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/10/2...ium-fuels.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_p...in_Afghanistan


    And the fact that this increase in drug money being laundered through the big international banks actually helped stave off their collapse in 2008-9, and kept the most egregious fraudsters afloat fro a little longer, despite their uncanny ability to vampirically drain capitol from otherwise well-off, prosperous nations like Greece and Ireland:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/200...n-cfief-claims


    Yeah, it's just a crazy conspiracy.

    Well, it IS a conspiracy--one so crazy that no rational person would think to pull it off. A collusion of power, drugs, and control perpetrated by an international cabal of generational sociopathic neo-feudalists, who are willing to do ANYTHING to re-establish the feudalistic social structure of their ancient forefathers...

    Our founding fathers are Jefferson, Washington, Paine, and their ilk.

    The "founding fathers" of the "people" (and I use that term loosely) are the likes of Ivan the Terrible, Elizabeth Bathroy, Genghis Khan, Nero, and Machiavelli...

    Wake the f*** up, man...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 05-12-2011 at 11:05 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Ron Paul's ability to reason has never impressed me.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Kind of like this video where he is taking all the credit:

    ]
    No, like the video the night this all went down when he claimed, "I did this" and "I did that" .... as I referred to the in the first post. Go youtube it, you'll find it

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    We're spending billions of dollars for a "war" JUST so the international banks can profit from the drug money being created by the increase in opium traffic from Afghanistan.

    Meanwhile, we put people in jail in the US for smoking a doobie.

    The "war on terror" is really a "war OF terror", and the REAL terrorists are not men in funny hats living in caves--they are Ivy-league Brooks-Brothers suit-wearing sociopaths living in multi-million-dollar mansions.

    This isn't a "left/right" issue. It's a TRUTH and LIBERTY issue.
    Ah yes, I see now. Methinks the TRUTH is, you've been taking a little too much LIBERTY with that doobie you mentioned

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I have no information that Dr. Paul is isolationist. As far as I know he is very supportive of being on good terms with the rest of the world through trade.
    I was referring to isolationism more in the sense of non-interventionism, I suppose. Y'know, the "world cop" thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    As for the Ron Paul quote. I agree that it wasn't "necessary" but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have done it. I don't think we should be over there, but as we are there I don't see any reason to not take out people such as Osama. I just wish the U.S. could quit playing the role of "world police."
    If the Britain (the superpower at the time) had been more willing to play "world police" circa 1938, 13+ million Jews, Catholics, Homosexuals, etc, might have lived to see 1945. I think the "world cop" bit is cop-out. Being the superpower means occasionally stepping in other places in order to protect national interests or avert a greater crisis. The "government" of Afghanistan at the time gave aid and refuge to the planners and perpetrators of 9/11, bin laden himself included. And would have continued to do so, had we not stepped in. We're still there in order to prevent the same or similar rulers from taking the place back over.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Ron explains it all for you (with funky kinetic type effects...):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqAF-...eature=related


    And the original speech, on CSPAN:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s_IU...eature=related
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  23. #23
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    If the Britain (the superpower at the time) had been more willing to play "world police" circa 1938, 13+ million Jews, Catholics, Homosexuals, etc, might have lived to see 1945.

    Yeah, and if JP Morgan, Bank de Rothchilds,
    Bank of England, Brown Bothers Harriman, Royal Dutch Oil, Union Banking Corporation, Standard Oil, General Motors, and IBM hadn't made loans to fund political campaigns for the NSDAP, sold technology to the 3rd Reich, and set up "shell corporations" in Germany and Vichey France to support contracts with the Nazi's throughout the ENTIRE WAR, the whole "little man from Austria" tragedy may well have never gotten off the ground in the first place...

    But the premise that the Nazis were actually funded into existence and supported throughout the war by proto-globalist international corporations, and then given shelter under top-secret US Federal programs in positions of power in American and British universities, corporations, and government positions is just a wack-job conspiracy theory too...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004...secondworldwar

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100474,00.html

    http://www.amazon.com/Who-Financed-H.../dp/0671760831

    http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...nazicars30.htm

    http://www.jewishjournal.com/article...third_reichs4/

    http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300106343

    http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/link...ckefeller.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

    http://www.archives.gov/iwg/declassi...nse-secretary/

    The Nazi's didn't lose the war, they just transferred their base of operations across the ocean...


    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    The "government" of Afghanistan at the time gave aid and refuge to the planners and perpetrators of 9/11, bin laden himself included. And would have continued to do so, had we not stepped in. We're still there in order to prevent the same or similar rulers from taking the place back over.
    Yeah, the fact that the Mujahideen (who became the Taliban, and then Al-CIAda) was funded into existence, trained, and equipped by the USA under the direction of Zbigniew Brzezinski--who HAND-PICKED Osama Bin-Laden to be their charismatic leader, doesn't seem to enter into your version of history though, does it?...

    http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

    http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011...-30154676.html



    Just like all that New World Order stuff is BS, and nobody in power REALLY believe in it...

    (Listen at 0:52-55)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SISUI...layer_embedded

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVmtb...layer_embedded

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptcp07v_w-w

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7D21...eature=related


    WTFU, dude...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 05-13-2011 at 12:00 AM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  24. #24
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    ...mindless babble...
    Wow dude... I started this for a rational conversation. You, clearly, are not rational, so I'll introduce you to my ignore list. You go on with your bad self railing about those mean ol' nasty banks. Better add another layer to the ol' tinfoil hat tho, you're starting to get noticed and Cyborg Hitler might find you!

    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037
    Just as an FYI - libertarians generally are all for national defense, they just don't extend that to stationing troops in the roughly 130 countries that we currently do.

    Its pretty tough for me to figure out why we are spending our hard-earned dollars providing a defensive shield to Europe, Japan, and Korea when they dedicate almost nothing to their own defense.

    As for Pakistan knowing (or not) that OBL was there... who knows? Its not like the US has ever had a "most wanted" type evade capture for years in a US city either. Could their GOV have been helping him? Of course! But its also clearly possible they weren't.

    Either way - I do wish the US would follow its own laws much more consistently, here and abroad. Did the raid not remind you a wee bit of standard tactics for serving a pot possession warrant? Shoot a few people and then figure out if anyone was armed afterward...

    Pretty easy political "get out of jail free card" on this one though. OBL is surely the most unsympathetic character around for most of us. Only someone who is incredibly bound by their convictions could object to the methods used. Thank goodness we didn't elect Ron Paul to be CIC.

Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •